4 ms·
The article asserts there is a "drought" because Earthquakes on certain faults haven't occurred in the last N years. But the article fails to even suggest a fre
by cjensen 9y ago
The article asserts there is a "drought" because Earthquakes on certain faults haven't occurred in the last N years. But the article fails to even suggest a frequency of expected occurrence which would lead to such a conclusion. This is just clickbait exploiting fear for money.
For facts, the USGS posts the best scientific evaluation of fault frequency. Here's the one for the Bay Area [1]. Summary is that in the next 30 years, there is a 98% chance of >= 6.0 (meh), 72% chance of >= 6.7 (ouch), 51% chance of >= 7.1 (Loma Prieta class), and 20% chance of >= 7.5 (Great SF Earthquake class). The fact sheet goes into detail on the likelihood of earthquakes on each fault.
[1] PDF https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2016/3020/fs20163020.pdf https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2016/3020/fs20163020.pdf